Relevance And Materiality: The Basic Rule of Admissibility
| Author | David M. Paciocco/Lee Stuesser |
| Pages | 26-47 |
CHA PTER 2
RELEVANCE AND
MATERIALITY: THE
BASIC RULE OF
ADMISSIBILIT Y
1. THE BASIC RULE OF EVIDENCE
Information can be admitted as evidence only where it is relevant
to a material issue in the case.
Information can be considered by the trier of fact solely where it is
“admissible.” There is a “basic rule” that all evidence must s atisfy in
order to gain admission. This basic rule requires that all evidence must
be relevant to a materi al issue in the case. Even if evidence does meet
this “basic r ule,” it still may not be admitted. Evidence that is relevant
to a material issue may still be caught by an exclusionary rule, of which
there are many, or it may be rejected through the operation of an ex-
clusionary discretion. Whether evidence satisfies the basic preliminary
condition for admissibility of relevance and materiality is a matter to be
decided by the trial judge as an issue of law.
Often lawyers fail to distinguish between the separate concepts of
relevance and materiality, referring to “immaterial” ev idence as being
“irrelevant.”1 In R. v. Truscott the Ontario Court of Ap peal sub sumed ma -
teriality in its definition of relevance, noting that “[e]vidence will b e ir-
relevant either if it does not make the fact to which it is directed more or
less likely, or if the fact to which the evidence i s directed is not material
26
Relevance and Mat eriality: The Basic Rule of Ad missibility 27
to the proceedings.”2 The first concept described by the Court — whether
the evidence m akes a fact it i s directed to more or less likely — describes
the concept referred to in this text as “relevance.” The second concept
described by the Court — whether the evidence is directed to a material
issue in the proceedings — is referred to in this text as materialit y. While
it is by no means wrong to use the term “relevance” to capture both con-
cepts, it is useful analytically to distinguish bet ween them.3
2. MATERI ALIT Y
Evidence that is not directed at a matter in issue in the case is “im-
material.” To identify immate rial evidence, a sk, “What is my op-
ponent trying to prove?” and then decide whether the thing sought
to be proved is a matter in issue.
2.1) The Concept Explained
Regardless of the kind of proceeding, courts or tribunals resolving
issues of fact a re b eing asked to settle particul ar controversies. They
are not interested in information about matters other than t hose t hat
need to be settled. Evidence that i s not directed at a matter in issue is
inadmissible because it is “immateri al.” By contrast, “[ev idence] is ma-
terial if it is di rected at a matter in issue in t he case.”4
For example, if a plaintiff alleges that a par ticular contract negoti-
ated in 1992 h as be en bre ached, evide nce abo ut a 1990 contr act bet ween
the parties will probably not be mater ial since the existence of, or com-
pliance with, that contract is not the matter the cour t is interested in. On
the other hand, if t he 1990 transaction is connected fact ually to the 1992
transaction, such as where some of its terms have been incorporated by
reference into t he later contract, proof of t he 1990 contract may become
material. By the same token, it would be immaterial for the defendant
to seek to prove that the plaintiff him self breached the 1992 contract by
payi ng a required inst alment four mont hs late, since , as a matter of con-
tract law, that late payment breach would not be fundamental enough to
relieve the defendant of his own contract obligations. Similarly, it would
2 R. v. Truscott (2006), 213 C.C.C. (3d) 18 3 at para. 22 (Ont. C.A.).
3 See R. v. Collins (2001), 160 C.C.C. (3d) 85 at paras. 18–19 (Ont. C.A.), for a de-
scription of mate riality and relevance, a nd a general summary of t he role these
notions play in deter mining admiss ibility.
To continue reading
Request your trial